The Mên-an-Tol Stones

Borlase’s 1754 Theory and Modern Archaeological Conclusions

Mên-an-Tol.

Mên-an-Tol in Cornwall is a small prehistoric monument famous for its round, holed stone flanked by two upright stones. Today, these stones stand in a straight line, but in the mid-18th century, the antiquarian William Borlase observed a different layout. Borlase’s 1754 account suggested the stones once formed a triangular arrangement rather than the current linear alignment. Below, we examine Borlase’s original description and reasoning, and then compare it with what modern archaeology has concluded about the stones’ original placement and purpose.

Borlase’s 1754 Triangular Layout Theory

William Borlase’s 18th-century illustration of the Mên-an-Tol. The plan view (bottom) shows the three principal stones arranged at an angle – a roughly triangular layout – rather than in a straight line​

In 1749 Borlase visited the Men-an-Tol site and documented what he saw. In his published 1754 plan (reproduced in 1769), he depicted the three standing stones “not in a line like today, but [forming] an angle of about 135°”​. In other words, the holed stone and its two upright companions formed a triangular configuration on the ground, instead of the straight row we see now. Borlase further noted that farmers had removed some stones from the vicinity, implying that the remaining three were only part of a larger original setting​. This suggests Borlase believed the monument had been disturbed and that the three stones he mapped were survivors of an earlier arrangement (hence his triangular layout drawing).

Borlase’s reasoning was that the current positions were not original – he was essentially recording an altered state of the site. Indeed, his triangle-shaped plan differs from the modern alignment, indicating that one or more stones must have been moved between the 18th and 19th centuries. In support of this, later antiquarians found that “the westernmost stone was moved and brought into a straight line with the other two” sometime after 1815​. In other words, the three stones Borlase saw in a triangular arrangement were deliberately re-set into a straight row by the 19th century. Borlase was therefore correct in suspecting that the monument’s layout had been manipulated over time. He captured an earlier (though already disturbed) layout, and even in his day, locals recalled dismantling or relocating stones on the site​.

It’s worth noting that Borlase was also the first to record the folklore and healing rituals associated with the holed stone. He learned from locals in 1749 that people “crept through this holed stone for pains in their back and limbs” and that children were passed through the stone to cure rickets​megalithics.com​megalithics.com. While this lore doesn’t directly explain the original Neolithic/Bronze Age purpose of the monument, it does show the stone had long-standing cultural significance. Borlase’s documentation of both the triangular layout and the local traditions laid the groundwork for future researchers to puzzle over what Men-an-Tol originally looked like and what it was for.

Modern Archaeological Interpretation

Modern archaeology has revisited Men-an-Tol’s layout and purpose, and the consensus is that Borlase’s “triangle” was not the original prehistoric design but rather a partial survival of a larger monument. Recent surveys and analyses indicate that the Men-an-Tol stones were likely part of a stone circle or ring structure from the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age, rather than an isolated trio of stones. Archaeologists from the Cornwall Archaeological Unit, for example, cleared vegetation around the site in the early 1990s and discovered at least 11 other buried or fallen stones in the immediate area​. These appear to be the remains or stumps of additional standing stones. Extrapolating from their positions, researchers suggest an original circle of 18–20 stones about 15–18 m in diameter surrounding the holed stone​megalithics.com​. In light of this evidence, Men-an-Tol is now often interpreted as the fragmentary remains of a complete stone circle (with the holed stone being a unique feature of that circle)​.

This modern theory means that the famous three stones were almost certainly moved from their initial layout. The two flanking uprights now beside the holed stone were likely not originally set in a neat row with it. They may have stood elsewhere along the circumference of a circle. In fact, if the site were a true stone circle, the stones have been rearranged – perhaps turned or shifted by past human intervention​. The current straight-line arrangement is thus a later reconfiguration (whether by farmers, antiquarians, or natural processes) rather than the prehistoric plan. Borlase was correct in principle that the stones had been relocated since antiquity (and even since his time, as the 1815 movement shows), but he did not fully realise that the original monument was much larger than a triangle. Instead of a deliberate triangular setting, the triangular formation he recorded was probably an accidental result of some stones remaining while others had been removed.

What about the purpose of Men-an-Tol? If it were part of a stone circle, its function would align with other ritual or ceremonial circles of the late Neolithic/Bronze Age. The exact purpose is still debated, but current experts propose a few possibilities:

• Ceremonial/Fertility Rituals: The distinctive holed stone suggests a ritual significance. Some archaeologists and folklorists believe the hole may have been used symbolically for “rebirthing” or fertility rites, where people passed through the stone’s round opening as a ritual of transformation or healing​. This ties in with the long-recorded folklore of curing ailments: passing a child or adult through the stone could symbolise a rebirth into health. The juxtaposition of a ring-shaped stone and upright pillars might have been a deliberate sacred design, possibly representing female and male elements or other cosmological symbols, which would resonate with fertility traditions​.

• Astronomical Alignment: Another hypothesis is that the holed stone served an astronomical viewing function. The 1993 survey team noted it’s possible the stone’s hole was positioned to frame specific points on the horizon, such as where the sun or moon might rise or set at certain times of year​ In theory, an observer could look through the circular hole and sight an alignment (for example, the midsummer sunrise). However, this idea is tentative, as those researchers acknowledge, “such a use of a holed stone is not known at other sites”​. No other British stone circles are known to include an intentionally holed stone for sighting, so if Men-an-Tol was used this way, it would be unique. Thus, while an astronomical purpose is an intriguing possibility, it remains speculative without further evidence.

• Marker of a Tomb or Cairn: A minority view holds that the holed stone might not originally have been part of the circle at all, but rather a piece of a tomb or burial cairn that once stood nearby. There is a small cairn mound just southeast of the holed stone​, and some have suggested the holed stone could have been a portal stone or capstone of a grave monument (perhaps an entrance that one had to crawl through) which was later repurposed into the circle layout​. If true, Men-an-Tol’s holed stone might have started as part of a Bronze Age tomb and only later ended up as part of a standing stone arrangement. This theory, however, competes with the strong evidence for the stone circle and isn’t widely accepted as the primary explanation. It remains a possibility that the holed stone was moved from a tomb to the circle, but direct archaeological proof is lacking​.

Overall, the prevailing modern view is that Men-an-Tol was originally a stone circle or ring of stones, within which the holed stone was a special feature​. The circle likely served as a ceremonial site in the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age, given its form and the presence of nearby barrows. The purpose of the holed stone within that context may have been ritualistic, potentially related to healing or fertility, but we cannot be certain. What we do know from contemporary archaeology is that the stones are no longer in their original configuration. Over centuries, human meddling (and perhaps treasure-hunting or agricultural clearance) led to stones being taken away or re-set. By the time Borlase sketched the site in 1749, only three uprights were left standing, and they formed a rough triangle​ . Then, by the 19th century, even that arrangement was altered to a straight line​.

Was Borlase Correct?

In a sense, yes – Borlase was correct that the Men-an-Tol stones had been moved and that the straight-line arrangement was not original. Modern experts affirm that the monument has been heavily disturbed and rearranged since prehistoric times​. However, Borlase’s notion of a triangular layout was incomplete. We now have strong evidence that the original design was a full circle of stones, far more complex than just three stones forming a triangle​. Borlase could not have known this, but he did document clues (like missing stones and local removals) that hint the site was once larger​. Today’s archaeologists, armed with detailed surveys and comparisons to similar monuments, have built on those clues to conclude that Men-an-Tol’s holed stone and its companions were likely part of a stone circle ritual site​.

In summary, modern archaeological consensus holds that Men-an-Tol’s stones have been rearranged from their prehistoric positions. Borlase’s 1754 observations of a triangular arrangement captured one stage in the monument’s long life. However, the original Neolithic/Bronze Age layout was almost certainly different, probably a complete circle of standing stones, of which the iconic holed stone is a remnant. The exact purpose of this monument remains a topic of scholarly discussion, with leading interpretations pointing to a ceremonial or ritual function (possibly involving healing rites or astronomical alignments)​. As of today, ongoing preservation and research at Men-an-Tol continue to respect both the antiquarian records and the archaeological evidence, piecing together the story of this enigmatic “holed stone” monument.

Sources

• William Borlase’s Antiquities of Cornwall (1754).

• William Borlase, (1769), Antiquities Historical and Monumental of the County of Cornwall, Bowyer and Nichols, London

• John Thomas Blight, (1864), A week at the Land's End, 1861, Churches of West Cornwall

• Hugh O’Neill Hencken’s Archaeology of Cornwall and Scilly (1932), which argued the holed stone was “the solitary survivor of a destroyed tomb”​megalithics.com.

• Ann Preston-Jones, “The Men-an-Tol Reconsidered,” Cornish Archaeology 32 (1993).

• Heritage records and summaries (Historic England) confirming the stone circle hypothesis and noting the post-1815 realignment.

• Scholarly and folklore discussions of Men-an-Tol’s use, including fertility rituals and alignment theories​: isleofalbion.co.uk

• Featured image courtesy of Penlee House Gallery & Museum​, Penzance